P&C Crap-All

Pages

formerly titled: "Yo dawg, I herd you like subtopic threads to avoid derails..." to keep a PAX(?) thread clear of a derail, a catch-all for derails not big enough to support their own thread might not be a bad idea.

NSMike wrote:

I think we need to draw a distinction between antagonizing him and trying to further educate him. His last "apology" still had plenty of things that were not right, and he still needs to learn how to be more sensitive to the trans* community. You're speaking as though he's learned his lesson, LarryC, when, in all likelihood, the only lesson he may have learned is to keep his hands out of that particular hornet's nest.

LarryC wrote:

I'm advocating not calling an asshat an asshat when that provably leads to them being even more of an asshat, which then excuses lots more asshats to be even more asshats. At that point, maybe do, well, anything else? Unless the point is to encourage the asshattery, which, as I said, if true, then fire away. Purely results oriented. No moral judgments.

The bolded issue is his problem to correct, by the way.

Morally it's his problem to correct. Practically it's our problem to correct, at least from our standpoint.

I don't see that as practical. Such personal faults take a long time to correct, and require a lots of personal interaction and psychological breakthroughs. Even as a friend, I don't have time for that crap. If I want someone to do something, I just work around their personal faults. That's the practical approach I always have used. Sometimes, I even use someone's faults against them. This, btw, is why I find it grossly unfair when someone gets angry at me for no reason I can discern. I can take advantage of it, but I shouldn't.

It makes me feel squicky when I use someone's anger against them.

LarryC wrote:

I don't see that as practical. Such personal faults take a long time to correct, and require a lots of personal interaction and psychological breakthroughs. Even as a friend, I don't have time for that crap. If I want someone to do something, I just work around their personal faults. That's the practical approach I always have used. Sometimes, I even use someone's faults against them. This, btw, I find it unfair when someone gets angry at me for no reason I can discern. I can take advantage of it, but I shouldn't.

I mean 'practical' in the sense of it not being a judgement about who is blameworthy, just a judgement about the reality of the situation. Like you said: "Purely results oriented. No moral judgments."

We're using "practical" there differently. It's not practical to have to deal with someone's issues if you just want them to act or speak in a particular way. In some cases, it's actually counterproductive because it removes a known weakness you can exploit. Admittedly, it's a wall here, but it's kind of double sided. Any more sensible person would have just simply shut up and that would be the end of it. Krahulik just can't help doubling down on the stupid. Now he needs an out.

That's an opportunity, not a problem.

EDIT:

Used "practical" to mean effective, efficient, or feasible; not as antonym of moral

LarryC wrote:

We're using "practical" there differently. It's not practical to have to deal with someone's issues if you just want them to act or speak in a particular way. In some cases, it's actually counterproductive because it removes a known weakness you can exploit. Admittedly, it's a wall here, but it's kind of double sided. Any more sensible person would have just simply shut up and that would be the end of it. Krahulik just can't help doubling down on the stupid. Now he needs an out.

That's an opportunity, not a problem.

Are you saying something like, it's easier to just get him to see that it's a lot more fun to play the White Knight in this situation than to effect any substantive change that would require him to deal with his issues?

I'm saying that getting him to say the right things on gender issues is entirely separate from his inability to avoid saying stupid things. He's got a button a mile wide and everyone's pushing it. That's only my problem insomuch as there are asshats who are putatively trans people who are goading him to say transphobic statements. That part is a problem, but that has alternative solutions that doesn't require me to deal with Mike.

I think that since he's already compromised, it'll be easier (not more fun nor more entertaining) to use that to get him to agree to anything, and then use his "good guy" self-image to get him to champion the cause. He's done it for Child Play. Citing teenage suicide issues for trans and gay folks sounds like a nice lever.

LarryC wrote:

I'm saying that getting him to say the right things on gender issues is entirely separate from his inability to avoid saying stupid things. He's got a button a mile wide and everyone's pushing it. That's only my problem insomuch as there are asshats who are putatively trans people who are goading him to say transphobic statements. That part is a problem, but that has alternative solutions that doesn't require me to deal with Mike.

I think that since he's already compromised, it'll be easier (not more fun nor more entertaining) to use that to get him to agree to anything, and then use his "good guy" image to get him to champion the cause. He's done it for Child Play. Citing teenage suicide issues for trans and gay folks sounds like a nice lever.

That's a good point.

I have to agree that it probably wouldn't be hard to get Mike to understand and suddenly have a huge positive movement on our hands in the gaming community. It honestly wouldn't even be that hard to do it as a large community on the internet IF there weren't also people attacking him and undoing any work towards helping him understand. I think Sophie is a very important part of this potential change, since she is the one route he's had out of his corner.

To put it in gaming terms(because why not?). If you had the choice to easily kill a miniboss and then go on to the big boss, or spend more time converting a miniboss and have an easier time on the big boss, which would you do? Now imagine that you beating the game helps solve world issues. GO!

It turns out that if someone does something (like, say, signing a petition or running a charity) that has an unanticipated effect that conflicts with their base beliefs, that's cognitive dissonance. However, because actions are more important than words to most people, they are then far more likely to *change* their beliefs in order to justify their action.

It seems to me that he's got enough hands in enough charitable pies that he's likely to undergo this kind of conversion. Still, that may be wishful thinking.

I'm not sure that's exactly what's happening. Despite his faults, I think Mike really does want to be gay and trans-friendly on some level, but he just keeps putting his foot in his mouth, and then when he gets called on it, doubles down instead of accepting the humble path. That's especially true if he's antagonized. That seems to be a particular weakness of his.

Change isn't easy, and it's not instant. It's unrealistic to expect Mike to know the lingo and the intricacies of trans philosophy just because he's willing to go that way. It's even less realistic to expect him to apply all that all the time picture-perfect right now. I think this goes back to what we talked about, Robear, where I get the impression that Westerners have inhuman expectations of any leader, even when that leader is an accidental demagogue like Mike.

Delerat wrote:

To put it in gaming terms(because why not?). If you had the choice to easily kill a miniboss and then go on to the big boss, or spend more time converting a miniboss and have an easier time on the big boss, which would you do? Now imagine that you beating the game helps solve world issues. GO!

I believe the mass effect statistics showed that the majority of gamers take the Paragon path (something like 65%). Also of note is that only 18% play the female version of shepherd. I am kind of curious since games have a profit motive when some people get irritated about the "lack of female protagonists". Given the cost and scope to make dual dialogue, etc if less than 1 in 5 are going to use that content... I guess it becomes kind of self perpetuating at that point. So if it will take $X extra to build the engine to convert and use the miniboss and focus groups suggest that only a small percentage of players will do that... it isn't economical and won't be done.

Bioware, btw has mostly been excellent at offering alternative story lines for diverse groups.

His last "apology" still had plenty of things that were not right, and he still needs to learn how to be more sensitive to the trans* community.

I find it hard to believe that anyone using social media in real time is going to be able to cover all of their sensitivity bases for all groups at the same time. He was discussing a female masturbation game which already puts him way outside society norms in this country. This statement reads to me more like his words weren't structured in the way that you approve of. Frankly given the breadth and depth of opinions and perspectives in the world it is a completely unreasonable expectation that everyone speak without any possible offense to all groups at all times. These things will happen, especially when someone speaks off the cuff, and if we want to live in a gracious society saying "hey, those words can be hurtful because of ____" and the speaker saying "oops, my bad, didn't really think of that" should be enough for anyone so we can get on with life and play some freaking games.

The other alternative is for people just to avoid such topics altogether, which is what most people do. Question is whether that is a good or bad thing.

That is unequivocally a bad thing for minority groups like LGBT. Awareness is a crucial point of gain. People avoiding LGBT topics decreases awareness dramatically, especially if the avoidance is being done by social leaders. It sets the tone.

I guess it becomes kind of self perpetuating at that point. So if it will take $X extra to build the engine to convert and use the miniboss and focus groups suggest that only a small percentage of players will do that... it isn't economical and won't be done.

I think that lot of salt needs to be taken with drawing the conclusion from that statistic. ME is itself a shooting game with gratuitous male eyecandy in a plot mainly dealing with a male power fantasy. In other words, it's a male-flavored Gillette. Just because women won't use a male-flavored Gillette doesn't mean that there isn't a female market for razors.

LarryC wrote:

I think that lot of salt needs to be taken with drawing the conclusion from that statistic. ME is itself a shooting game with gratuitous male eyecandy in a plot mainly dealing with a male power fantasy. In other words, it's a male-flavored Gillette. Just because women won't use a male-flavored Gillette doesn't mean that there isn't a female market for razors.

Is it a stereotype that women don't enjoy shooters? (That is mostly tongue in cheek by the way)

I would imagine that any games company with a decent market research arm knows a lot more about whether a female protagonist will sell or not. I imagine the vast majority of game writers just tell the story they are passionate about telling. Wonder what the stats are on gender of game writers in the industry.

The tricky thing about market research though is when people lie/answer questions based on their ideal perception of their attitudes rather than the reality of them. For example if polled they may say that they would "really like to see a female protagonist" because they are aware of the cultural stereotypes, and then no one buys the game.

How many people would check the "Yes I'm a bigot box" on a survey?

The marketing matters. It's not just the dollars, it's the slant. See: women writers and book covers. It gets face-slappingly ridiculous.

LarryC wrote:

Change isn't easy, and it's not instant. It's unrealistic to expect Mike to know the lingo and the intricacies of trans philosophy just because he's willing to go that way. It's even less realistic to expect him to apply all that all the time picture-perfect right now. I think this goes back to what we talked about, Robear, where I get the impression that Westerners have inhuman expectations of any leader, even when that leader is an accidental demagogue like Mike.

That's a good point, Larry.

Bandit wrote:

Also of note is that only 18% play the female version of shepherd. I am kind of curious since games have a profit motive when some people get irritated about the "lack of female protagonists". Given the cost and scope to make dual dialogue, etc if less than 1 in 5 are going to use that content... I guess it becomes kind of self perpetuating at that point. So if it will take $X extra to build the engine to convert and use the miniboss and focus groups suggest that only a small percentage of players will do that... it isn't economical and won't be done.

I dunno. Let's say ME2 cost $50M to make. It returned $200M in the first month of release. So every development dollar was returned at least four-fold (and almost certainly significantly more).

If 20% of players play female characters, let's say 10% of those - 2% of total players - might ditch the game entirely if they did male-only characters. That would be a net drop in sales of $4M. According to voices.com, you can get a videogame voice-over actor for about $1000 a day (modulo the fame of the actor, of course). Mass effect 3 had 23 unique character conversation trees, with about 40,000 lines of dialog. It's a forty-hour game with about 90 minutes of cut-scenes (which will contain much of the unique dialog).

Let's say a month of voice actor time to record the dialog, that's $5,000 times, say, 15 voices a week for four weeks. That's $300,000 to add dialog into the process. If you can bring in more than about a 0.2% increase in sales with female dialog trees, you're going to make money on it. If there actually *are* 2% of the player base that will only want to play female characters - not at all unrealistic - then if you don't do it, you could be out over ten times what it would cost to put it in. (I assume the foley costs are built-in; that's just a matter of adding the voices to the queue, not investing in new equipment and people to do this.)

That doesn't seem uneconomical at all, for a AAA game budget. In fact, I'd guess the larger the game budget is, the more likely it is to have these niche features, since the buy-in costs are swamped by the potential sales and profit they add.

Just some off-the-cuff thoughts.

Has the pile on of the Internet Rage Machine ever changed the person for the better?

How would anyone else react to be called "literally a monster" because when confronted with something he has never had to deal with before he gets it wrong? He is a public figure by virtue of producing a large pile of comics that a lot of people like. He has not had to pass any public figure certification test that checks he has culturally acceptable views on an infinite array of topics.

Even when he tries to back down, the pile on continued. His apology was not sufficiently abject. It was fisked line by line. Every step he takes is accompanied by another demand for yet more acquiescence to the demands of the IRM.

Unless you are the Dalai Lama then you will be defensive when attacked. Why would we expect him to behave any differently?

Is this the new version of bear baiting?

Well, it's not like he hasn't put the "Internet Rage Machine" to use for himself (the incident with that douchey controller guy comes to mind). And yeah, when you become a public figure, you're not given a test, but you're held to a standard. Same for PA, same for Chris Culliver, same for Al Campanis, Paula Deen, Michael Richards, John Rocker, the radio guys who made fun of Steve Gleason and (you might be more familiar with this last one) Kyle Sandilands.

No you're not given a test or a checklist, or even a primer. It's on you to try and be mindful of what you do and say. (Unless you're Kyle Sandilands, who apparently has manged to turn this into a lucrative cottage industry.)

This probably isn't as big of a thing if not for the "Dickwolves" saga before it.

Also, bear baiting is a blood sport where someone or something died. Here we have a bunch of people yelling on the internet. No-one's even lost their job.

Bear Baiting








Boxing








"Dancing With The Stars"







Internet Yelling Argument

Yeah, that's what I meant. Literal fighting to the death. Not a metaphor for a pack harrying a single enemy for spectacle purposes...

I thought it was unnecessary, inaccurate hyperbole. But there's more post for you up there as well.

EDIT: Certain organized, abusive trolling campaigns, like that "Consequences will never be the same" girl or several other instances of people deliberately tormenting another person purely for the sake of getting a reaction from them, now those would be internet "bear-baiting" equivalents. But I don't think what happened here was trolling.

Also, back on topic RE: most of the examples I cited, all of them were loudly, publicly admonished for their words (Rocker especially, Campanis lost his job, and Richards has been effectively banned from Hollywood forever [which is sad, I think he's paid his debt at this point, and feels really, really genuine remorse about what happened]).

Robear wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Change isn't easy, and it's not instant. It's unrealistic to expect Mike to know the lingo and the intricacies of trans philosophy just because he's willing to go that way. It's even less realistic to expect him to apply all that all the time picture-perfect right now. I think this goes back to what we talked about, Robear, where I get the impression that Westerners have inhuman expectations of any leader, even when that leader is an accidental demagogue like Mike.

That's a good point, Larry.

I think, often, people look to make an example of a particular offender, in order to get their message across, which is rewarding in the short-term, but doesn't really attack the problem long-term. It's difficult to say that you have to treat these things on a case-by-case basis, but you do. Some people are to discuss issues with, and some people.... some people deserve to be loudly, publicly admonished.

Like I said, if he doesn't have quite so much previous, Mike probably doesn't get the reaction he does. But he does, and there were already plenty of people who weren't willing to give him an inch or had written him off entirely, and not entirely unfairly.

I agree that Mike is interested in making a good faith effort, he's just genuinely terrible at it at times. I'm curious to see where we are in 8-12 months though.

A tangent, so I'll be brief.

I have a really large problem with treating people as they "deserve." Very few people really deserve a chance that might be called anything positive. Most of us, for good or ill, have been ill-advised, stupid, malicious, and even sadistic. Giving everyone what they deserved would land most of the human species in concentration camps. I find the concept ludicrous and dangerous.

The charitable thing is to forgive in an unlimited fashion, but even simply looking at the problem from a purely pragmatic standpoint, you still don't do "deserve." You treat people the way that gets results, which is almost always not congruent with vengeance philosophy.

LarryC wrote:

A tangent, so I'll be brief.

I have a really large problem with treating people as they "deserve." Very few people really deserve a chance that might be called anything positive. Most of us, for good or ill, have been ill-advised, stupid, malicious, and even sadistic. Giving everyone what they deserved would land most of the human species in concentration camps. I find the concept ludicrous and dangerous.

The charitable thing is to forgive in an unlimited fashion, but even simply looking at the problem from a purely pragmatic standpoint, you still don't do "deserve." You treat people the way that gets results, which is almost always not congruent with vengeance philosophy.

That's a bit reductive no? I understand where you're coming from in the context of the current PAX situation, but aren't we all deserving of respect and basic human dignity? Or of forgiveness? It's a bit of slippery rabbit hole slope.

nel e nel:

I suppose that depends on the POV. If we refer to actions taken, then none of us is even worthy of respect and basic human dignity, except perhaps for isolated cases like the Dalai Lama. Maybe. If we say that our humanity alone is worthy, then "deserve" no longer fits as a word. We all deserve unlimited forgiveness, so it's pointless to say otherwise.

It's the middle position that's untenable, IMO. IMO, it's simply used as a way to say "I do not approve of this human's actions personally, and that sanctions actions that would otherwise be inhuman."

We all deserve the benefit of the doubt, or we all don't. Anything less absolute is just a way of saying "I am right and reserve the right to treat you all as subhumans."

Interesting discussion. The only thing I'd like to add is to question why a guy from a gaming comic site is getting so much hate at a time where certain members of Congress like Marco Rubio are threatening to torpedo immigration reform if new laws recognize gay immigrants who were legally married in their home country. Now, I may lean conservative, but that's ridiculous, and Rubio should be receiving all the hate mail and vitriol that is now directed at Mike. Heck, that might actually change policy.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...

Because only maybe 5 of us here live in his district that can vote him out but all of us here can choose whether or not we use PA products and services that directly contribute to his salary.

Yeah... that's kind of a smoke bomb. Why aren't gamers this up in arms about worldwide hunger? KONY?

Edwin wrote:

Because only maybe 5 of us live in his district that can vote him out but all of us here can choose whether or not we use PA products and services that directly contribute to his salary.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we ignore Mike or dont hold PA accountable. I'm just pointing out there's an opportunity cost when you direct all this rage at - let's face it - a so-called celebrity who's important in gaming culture but has very little actual political or mainstream cultural power.

bombsfall wrote:

Yeah... that's kind of a smoke bomb. Why aren't gamers this up in arms about worldwide hunger? KONY?

Except that in this case it's a pretty similar issue, and IMHO Rubio's comments are far more egregious than Mike's.

Also, there are children starving in Africa.

LarryC wrote:

nel e nel:

I suppose that depends on the POV. If we refer to actions taken, then none of us is even worthy of respect and basic human dignity, except perhaps for isolated cases like the Dalai Lama. Maybe. If we say that our humanity alone is worthy, then "deserve" no longer fits as a word. We all deserve unlimited forgiveness, so it's pointless to say otherwise.

It's the middle position that's untenable, IMO. IMO, it's simply used as a way to say "I do not approve of this human's actions personally, and that sanctions actions that would otherwise be inhuman."

We all deserve the benefit of the doubt, or we all don't. Anything less absolute is just a way of saying "I am right and reserve the right to treat you all as subhumans."

I don't think "deserving" to get hollered at when you step wrong therefore means you don't "deserve" forgiveness, or else, yes, my parents would have abandoned me on the side of the road when I was 3. Everyone deserves a chance at forgiveness, assuming they make a good faith effort. This doesn't mean, if you screw up, other people don't get to tap you on the shoulder and go "Yo, you just screwed up."

I have a problem with "get to tap you on the shoulder," in the sense that it gives me the strong impression that you're espousing a value system in which other people get to censor you and sanction you for when they think you "screwed up." It gives a strong sense of majority entitlement to conformity and oppressive punitive measures, particularly with regards to morality - where "deserve" gets in. You're essentially judged, sentenced, and punished according to the vengeance motives of the powerful. You don't even have to threaten their lives or their livelihood. All you have to do is offend their sensibilities and you're sanctioned.

It feels wrong to me.

Rather, I'd say that society is held together (or should be) by bonds of caring and tolerance, and people tasked with caring for or having bonds with the offending party have an obligation to inform them when they could be doing things that are detrimental to his or her own interests. For instance, your parents have an obligation to educate you so you don't piss off every person in your immediate vicinity for the rest of your life.

In this sense, forgiveness is truly a bond of reconciliation, as it is both for the one forgiving, and the one who is forgiven. It restores the broken bond, which benefits both.

Hm. Well, it's certainly a subject worth giving more thought to. I think I understand your point, but the onus continually seems to be on society at large to fix the person doing the offense. Someone has to be there to reach a hand out when a person asks for forgiveness, to show them the error of their ways, but I don't find your argument of how pointing out to someone that they just screwed up is unfair particularly convincing.

I was once out with my friend in the back yard, mowing the grass. I was having a hard time with a certain section, and began playfully insulting it, using an anti-gay slur that's pretty commonplace for 14-year-olds in this country. I was doing this in full earshot of my neighbor, who is gay. He came over, and he informed me, calmly but in no uncertain terms, how hurtful what I was saying was and of the fact that it was a slur.

And I felt terrible. In part because i'm sure I knew, on a certain level, whatever the justifications or "evolution of the language" excuses, I was still using a slur with a very specific definition of a group of people to denigrate someone or something. But he didn't offer me anything other than that admonishment, and in hindsight, I'm glad he did. He explained what was messed up about what I was doing, and because he was someone I cared about, I felt, like I said, terrible.

I apologized to him in person later that day. He accepted my apology, saying he knew, from the word's growing use that I may not have meant it in a particular way, but that that didn't change it from being a slur. I learned from that experience and I'd like to think it made me, even if only by a fraction, a slightly more thoughtful and compassionate person.

For me personally, when my parents upbraided me, when some of the best people I know got called out, frequently, the explanation for our wrong was not utilitarian. It was often moral, that "saying/doing something like X is something really hurtful and cruel to do to other people because it's a violation of basic human dignity." Albeit, clearly not in those words.

I don't see it as slapping people down or censoring and oppressing them. Pointing it out, or criticism, is just that. I made a "kike" joke once infront of my best friend, who is Jewish. He told me it was incredibly offensive that I'd done so, and didn't give me any other explanation than that. And for me, that was enough. I knew I'd messed up, and he'd called me out on it. I was chastened and embarrassed, frankly because I should've known better, and I worked to make amends. I mean, isn't taking ownership of one's own mis-steps part of what maturity's about?

Non-PC har-de-har posted here to avoid threadcrapping after Hyp's great post:

Hypatian wrote:

Some people are demisexual, which is another complication on libido. Demi people don't generally get hot and bothered unless they're already romantically attached to somebody.

In the 1980's, we had a different nomenclature for such individuals. We referred to them as "women."

Pages